Sine Die

by Ben DeGrow | 9:26 pm, May 6, 2009

#redco #gop #tcot
It sounds like a garbled threat, or possibly a song from the High Mass. Sine die means neither, but it is cause for high celebration: The Colorado state legislature is adjourned for 2009, at least for the regular session. (I’m hearing insiders say that the Governor very well may call a special session in the summer.)

In one sense, it’s a shame to see the legislature walk away from its responsibility: Democrats have kicked the state’s fiscal problems a little ways down the road. But then again, the majority Democrats aren’t likely to grow a sense of responsibility any time soon.

So staunch the bleeding while there’s still time. Because, in fact, Democrats are now openly touting a recent state supreme court decision to say they can raise capital gains (and who knows what other kinds of) taxes — spitting on the state constitution’s plain language that requires a vote of the people to approve tax hikes.

While the legislature is out of session for now, the high court continues to wreak havoc. That’s why Clear the Bench Colorado is deserving of our support. We’d also do well to clear most of the benches in the state house and senate, too.

Sine die has come, just not quite soon enough.

Wednesday Wrap-Up

by Jon Caldara | 3:06 pm, May 6, 2009

***Justice Policy Center director Mike Krause and his mintern (minion-intern) Joe Carr wrote an op-ed on why the DNA bill is flawed (that’s putting it nicely). If you haven’t heard yet, Senate Bill 241 requires DNA samples to be collected from all those ARRESTED (not convicted) for a felony. Also known as, DNA [...]

Free Speech and Ward Churchill

by Ari Armstrong | 9:59 am, May 6, 2009

What about free speech for the rest of us?

by Ari Armstrong

Ward Churchill wants his job back. To quickly review, before Ward Churchill became a professor, he copied and sold another artist’s work under his own name. Then he got a tenured job at the University of Colorado, Boulder, without appropriate credentials, on the pretext that he is American Indian. He is not.

After Churchill wrote an essay comparing some victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to Nazis, the University of Colorado discovered that Churchill had also fabricated claims and plagiarized in his academic work. CU fired him in 2007.

On April 2, a jury found that CU had wrongly gone after Churchill for his essay on 9/11. An article in the Denver Post claimed that CU failed “to protect Ward Churchill’s free speech.” David Lane, Churchill’s persuasive lawyer, called CU’s Board of Regents “civil rights violators” and declared the verdict a victory for the First Amendment, the Post reported.

But who will defend free speech for the rest of us? Where is Lane’s outrage over the violations of free speech of those Colorado taxpayers forced, against their will, to subsidize Churchill’s fraud?

The First Amendment protects us from government censorship. If you write an essay, and the government beats down your door and arrests you for it, or seizes and destroys copies of the essay, or otherwise forcibly prevents you from speaking, that’s censorship.

The First Amendment is not a job protection act. It does not say that employers must allow their employees to say whatever they wish on the job. For instance, newspapers hire and fire writers based on the contents of their work. Many newspapers also restrict the off-duty speech of their writers. An employee of the Denver Post caught plagiarizing would be sent packing — even if that writer wrote controversial material and wore cool sunglasses with long hair.

Tenure is a contract, and Churchill was protected by that, though tenure does not protect academic fraud. Where does the idea come from that this was a First Amendment case?

The only plausible argument linking Churchill’s employment to the First Amendment is that various politicians, including former Governor Bill Owens, called for Churchill’s firing based on the 9/11 essay. And the state government helps fund CU. That tax funding is both a carrot and a stick, carrying the implicit threat that state funding is subject to politics.

CU reports that, for 2008-09, the state funded 8.5 percent of CU’s budget. Student tuition and fees, on the other hand, funded 41.3 percent. Over a fraction of its funding, then, CU accepts political oversight.

If we want real academic freedom, in which university policy is completely separated from politics, the solution is obvious. Stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize CU. Make all contributions voluntary. Then the governor and other politicians could rant and rave all they wanted; they could not control university policy.

The right of free speech entails the right not to speak and the right not to finance ideas you find repugnant. You have the right to purchase copies of the Denver Post, but the Post may not force you to buy copies. You have the right to use your own resources and those voluntarily given to you to speak. You have no right to forcibly seize the resources of others to speak.

When politicians take your money by force to fund ideas with which you disagree, they violate your rights of free speech.

But the Colorado taxpayer will never get a day in court.

Senator Jim DeMint Sets Up a Great Framework for Rebuilding the GOP

by Ben DeGrow | 8:13 am, May 6, 2009

#Senate #gop #DeMint #tcot
If there is anyone currently in the U.S. Senate of whom I would consider myself a fan, Jim DeMint of South Carolina would be on that short list. I understood where he was coming from but found it a little disconcerting when he said: “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”

What a great relief then to see Senator DeMint’s excellent column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal — what I consider an opportunity to revise and extend his remark. His rhetoric is blunt, and his analysis is clear:

In the wake of two successive electoral defeats and the likelihood of a 60-vote Democrat majority in the Senate, what does it even mean to be a Republican today? Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.

The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it….

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems….

Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them. [emphases added]

Electoral defeat can do a lot to focus the mind. My first impression? I like the idea of the three bolded statements as the strong tent poles of the GOP. Candidates for office — and particularly those at the national level (President, Senate, Congress) — should be able to subscribe to those, leaving room for respectful, measured disagreement and debate.

DeMint goes on to refresh our memories that a successful national party is built on the principles of federalism similar to the way our own Constitution is. While Republicans nationwide agree to these three broad statements, the flavor they may take in different regions and states will look somewhat different.

Under this banner one can be a strong conservative (whether on fiscal issues, social issues, or both) and work constructively as part of a broader coalition. I for one plan to remain a strong voice from my position on the Right side of the spectrum, because coalition-building does not mean capitulation. The tent is big, but it does have strong poles and clear edges. On the other hand, persistent persuasion does not equate with isolation.

Of course, this also presumes that our Republican elected officials in Washington live up to the three main principles. Too many have fallen short — especially on the third — but Senator Jim DeMint is one of the faithful few. No politician is perfect, but he has walked the walk. That’s why I pay attention (and bring attention) to what he wrote in the Journal yesterday.

Senator Jim DeMint Sets Up a Great Framework for Rebuilding the GOP

by Ben DeGrow | 8:11 am, May 6, 2009

If there is anyone currently in the U.S. Senate of whom I would consider myself a fan, Jim DeMint of South Carolina would be on that short list. I understood where he was coming from but found it a little disconcerting when he said: “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really [...]

Why free-market advocates are not persuasive

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, May 6, 2009

Says David Catron:
While conservatives talk about the insurance market, the Left talks about “covering the children.” While conservatives talk about socialized medicine, the Left talks about “the uninsured.” In other words, conservatives yammer about concepts while the Left talks about people.
That’s why we are getting our asses kicked. And it is why we will lose the debate if we [...]

GOP leads Dems in “generic” ballot poll

by Rossputin | 1:16 am, May 6, 2009

In mid-March, for the first time in five years, the GOP took a slim lead over the Democrats in Rasmussen’s Generic Congressional Ballot poll.

I did not write about it at the time, because it was just one week – hardly a trend – and could easily have been reversed. Indeed, it was, although just barely, with the Democrats holding a lead of 1% to 3% in each of the next three weekly polls.

However, I believe enough of a trend has developed since then that it’s worth mentioning.

The April 12th and 19th polls had the two parties tied. Then the April 26th poll had the Republicans up by 3%, and the last poll, released yesterday, had the GOP up by 1%. In other words, after two weeks of rare ties, the GOP has put in just its 2nd and 3rd leads in the last five years.

All is hardly sunshine for the Republican Party, to be sure. Rasmussen’s poll of partisan trends continues to show declines in GOP membership, though those declines have slowed dramatically, with most of the defections becoming Independent voters rather than Democrats. Indeed, Rasmussen says that “both parties are now at the low end of their recent range and the number not affiliated with either party is at the highest level since July.” And:

The Democrats now enjoy a 6.1 percentage point advantage over Republicans. During the first three months of 2009, the Democrats averaged a seven-point advantage.

While the partisan identification numbers shift little from month-to-month, the numbers document just how dramatically the political environment has changed over the past four years. In January 2005, as President Bush was inaugurated for his second term in office, the Democrats enjoyed just a one-percentage-point advantage over the GOP.

This implies that while many voters aren’t really on board with the GOP, they’re now at least as uncomfortable with the path the Democrats are on. And, keeping with the theme of tying poll results together, that fits in with yet another Rasmussen poll which shows that “Sixty-nine percent (69%) [of Republicans surveyed] say congressional Republicans have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation.” Remarkably, that is one percent higher than the result to the same question immediately after the election.

In other words, gains for the GOP are not coming because the GOP is doing a better job of making voters believe they stand for a better way for the nation. To the extent that perception is occurring, it’s because people are recognizing the Democratic agenda as dangerous.

And while much of the press coverage of polls lately (particularly at the 100-day mark of the Obama administration) has focused on Obama’s personal popularity, there is a message in the polls which show that Obama is more popular than his policies.

It’s early yet, and Obama’s policies are still more popular than they should be (in part because people are seduced by the idea that “at least he’s trying to do something.) But the trends are slowly, subtly turning against the Democrats, and Obama is not running in the next election.

I do not write this to suggest great optimism for Republican electoral prospects in 2010, though I also don’t discount the possibility of substantial GOP gains. The key is that it’s a very rare situation when just being “not them” is enough to beat incumbents. It happened in 1980, to some degree in 2006, and to a great degree in 2008 because Jimmy Carter was so bad, and then because the Republican Congress and, to a lesser degree, George W. Bush, were so bad.

It’s not clear to me that the breadth and depth of the Democratic attack on our free-market economy, our health care system, our banking system, and our economic liberty overall will be sufficiently obvious to the electorate to make just being “not a Democrat” a particularly strong campaign tactic in 2010. I also don’t think Obama’s popularity will drop to anywhere near George W. Bush’s no matter how bad a job he’s doing, and for my money he’s doing a far worse job in his early days than George W. Bush did. So, Republicans need to stand for something in order to win.

Contrary to Arlen Specter’s claims, the GOP has not “moved to far to the right”, at least not lately. John McCain was an immigration “dove”, he supports “cap and trade”, and came late to the pro-tax-cut side of things. He was relatively liberal for the GOP…and he got demolished. The Republican Party has done poorly not because they’ve moved too far to the right but because they tried to be simply anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage Democrats.

And for people like me, who are much more libertarian than conservative, there’s no worse sort of Republican. To a point, I agree with critics of the GOP’s socially conservative positions. And that point begins where Republican candidates focus primarily on those things. While I’m not a social issues conservative, I don’t object to someone who is as long as they’re not bent on using the federal government to enforce those views. So I can support and have supported social issues conservatives whose primary focus was on other things, namely limited government and liberty. I have withheld support from true fiscal conservatives who told me that they would support amending the Constitution to ban abortion.

I (like most people, probably) believe I represent a very large minority, probably an electorally decisive minority given the current make-up of the electorate.

And so, getting back to the main point of this note, the combination of polls, particularly the GOP putting in back-to-back weeks of leads in the generic ballot, shows not so much that the Republicans are back on track but that the Democrats are giving them an opening, their first glimmer of election hope in several years.

There may be a real opportunity for the GOP to grab, but it will only work out if the party shows not only hardcore Republicans but also fiscally conservative Independent voters that the party stands, first and foremost, for the principles of the Founders.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

“Conservativism Is Not a Dirty Word” Event at University of Denver, May 9

by Ben DeGrow | 10:31 pm, May 5, 2009

As promised in the closing moments of this week’s edition of Rocky Mountain Alliance Blog Talk Radio, here is information on this Saturday’s event “Conservatism Is Not a Dirty Word” (PDF), co-sponsored by the Denver University College Republicans and Denver Women’s Republican Club.

When? Saturday, May 9, 10 AM to noon
Where? Lindsay Auditorium, Sturm Hall, University [...]

Colorado Union Goon to Republican Operative: “You Gotta Delete That”

by Ben DeGrow | 10:13 pm, May 5, 2009

El Presidente elaborates on a Complete Colorado exclusive: official 911 audio of Republican operative Matt Milner being threatened for recording a public event featuring newly selected U.S. Senator Michael Bennet and sponsored by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Sure, our union goons aren’t as bad as Michigan union goons or New Jersey union goons. But [...]

Sign of Bill Ritter’s Sagging Popularity

by Ben DeGrow | 9:59 pm, May 5, 2009

Governor Bill Ritter is wrestling with another veto decision over a labor issue. But there are plenty of other reasons why his popularity has hit the skids with Coloradans. A faithful Mount Virtus reader snapped this photo of a sign near Highway 285 and 291 in Chaffee County:

Colorado Republicans are revving their engines in search [...]

Transparency passes

by Amy Oliver | 7:13 pm, May 5, 2009

COST learned that on Tuesday both houses of the Colorado General Assembly unanimously passed an amended version of HB 1288 the Colorado Transparency Act, the bill that proved to have “more lives than even the luckiest of felines.” It is now headed to Governor Bill Ritter for his signature.
The amended version builds upon Governor Ritter’s Executive Ordercreating the Transparency Online Project. [...]

Union Goons’ Alleged Intimidation At Event Attended By Sen. Michael Bennet Caught On Tape

by elpresidente | 4:56 pm, May 5, 2009

“You gotta delete that.”

Michael Ramirez

From CompleteColorado.com, an update on the event attended by Sen. Michael Bennet where a GOP operative alleged intimidation by union members who forced him to delete the contents of a video shot at the event as a condition for leaving:

CompleteColorado.com is first to obtain and publish the full 911 calls made by GOP operative Matt Milner at a union event featuring Senator Michael Bennet.

On April 25th, Milner went to a meeting at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ Local 68 union hall on North Logan Street. Milner admits he was being paid by the Colorado Republican Party to video tape remarks by Democrat U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. However, Milner claims he was prevented from leaving the union hall of his own accord for a period of time after some union officials became interested in how much information Milner had recorded. Milner called 911 to report that he felt as though he was being intimidated.

The story was originally reported by Jessica Fender of the Denver Post.
. . .
“You gotta delete that.” Milner responds, “I’m taking my camera with me,” to which the unidentified voice apparently responds, “Well, just delete what you…taped.”

The event appears to have been open to the public, and by all accounts, Milner had taped the event without incident until confronted as he tried to exit the venue.

From Fender’s Post report:

State GOP aide Matt Milner dialed 911 because he said union organizers blocked his exit and demanded he erase a video recording of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet on Saturday afternoon following a townhall meeting sponsored by the AFL-CIO.

Mike Cerbo, executive director of Colorado AFL-CIO, said Milner came looking for trouble, but he wasn’t forced to erase the tape or barred from leaving. It’s now a matter for the Adams County Sheriff’s Office, where authorities Sunday confirmed that they received a complaint from Milner. Police also confirmed his Saturday emergency call.

“I feared for my safety. Period,” the 25-year-old Milner said Sunday.

Neither Bennet nor his staff was present at the altercation, said both Milner and a representative for the senator.

Milner has been a familiar face at about a dozen official Bennet events. The state Republican Party confirmed that it pays him to shadow and videotape the freshman senator in a practice known as “tracking.”

There was no reason to think Saturday’s gathering at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ Local 68 union hall — billed as an “everyone’s welcome” affair on the invitation — would vary from the typically uneventful routine. And for several hours it didn’t, Milner said.

But Milner, with his tripod and video camera, garnered the attention of event organizers just as Bennet bid his adieu to hundreds of audience members, some of whom had grown passionate over politically tricky labor issues, such as the Employee Free Choice Act.

CompleteColorado.com also has audio of Milner’s interview with local radio hosts, relating his impression of events, some of which appears to be clearly corroborated by the 9-11 audio.

This story should be considered “in development” as the investigation is still “active.” Colorado law requires only one party give consent (no illegal wiretapping) in order to tape conversations, and appears to give new organizations the ability to record at “public,” “newsworthy” events:

However, nothing in these statutes “shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-305.

Should Milner’s recording be in the clear (the event was touted as open–”everyone’s welcome”), anyone demanding that he erase video as a condition of release can be considered “false imprisonment.”

Sen. Bennet faced a tough crowd at the event. Are these thuggish tactics–employed by a Democrat constituency, big labor–indicative of what we as Coloradans should expect to influence a vote on EFCW, and a window into things to come with a Democrat win in 2010?

Westminster Declares Mall Blighted

by Ari Armstrong | 3:03 pm, May 5, 2009

The Westminster Mall is nearly dead. That is obvious to anyone who’s visited it in the last year or two. So, obviously, breathing new life into it is the job of central economic planners who work for the city of Westminster. We couldn’t possibly leave individuals free to use their own resources to renovate the property; this is about maximizing tax revenues, after all.

Monte Whaley’s fawning article for the Denver Post, which includes not a single word of skepticism or criticism about the city’s plans, nevertheless offers some useful details.

Whaley notes that the city has formed “an urban renewal area created after the City Council declared the 32-year-old center blighted this month.”

Blighted? The mall is largely empty, but blighted? Here’s is the key bit of Whaley’s article:

The city hired Leland Consulting Group and Matrix Design Group to assess the complex. Their findings showed substantial problems that led the city to put the blighted tag on the mall.

The problems included buildings without fire-suppression sprinklers, poor water availability to fight fires, deteriorating parking and sidewalks, unsanitary pools of standing water, poorly lit areas, unscreened trash and bad traffic circulation.

An urban renewal authority will allow the city to use tax increment financing for upgrades.

The authority will also have the option to use the power of eminent domain to seize ownership of some of the shops in the mall, McFall said.

Eminent domain? “Tax increment financing?” If the problem is that taxes are too high for businesses to succeed in Westminster, then why doesn’t the city simply reduce taxes across the board? That would never do: the purpose of the city is to maximize tax revenues, after all.

Did anyone doubt, going into the study, that Leland Consulting Group and Matrix Design Group would find blight conditions? (How much were they paid to return those results?)

We all know that the city of Westminster will not possibly tolerate any exposed hazards, messy trash, or standing water:

My guess is that, if every property in Westminster were evaluated by similar standards, over half would be declared blighted. But everybody knows that declaring a property “blighted” has only a superficial relationship to the condition of the property. The point is to let the city threaten people with eminent domain. (This might be a move the mall’s owners would actually welcome, given the lack of business there, but I’m not sure because Whaley apparently didn’t consider contacting them, and I don’t have the time to do Whaley’s job for him.)

Here’s a thought: why doesn’t the city stop trying to plan the economy and instead create simple rules and low taxes that would benefit existing businesses and attract new ones? We all know the answer: then the politicians and bureaucrats wouldn’t get to doll out favors and take credit for other people’s work.

Rule of Law or Rule by Whimsy? or “What Makes a good Judge?”

by CTBC Director | 1:30 pm, May 5, 2009

The recently-announced impending retirement of U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter – thus giving President Obama his first opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court judge – has focused attention and discussion on the desired characteristics and qualifications to assume that important position.

Recent decisions and actions by our own Colorado state Supreme Court – and the potential for “retiring” four of the current Colorado Supreme Court justices in judicial retention elections in 2010 – raise(s) similar questions about the desired characteristics and qualifications of judges for that court as well.

What makes a good judge?

RMA Blog Talk Radio at 8:30 Tonight: Blue Collar Muse and More …

by Ben DeGrow | 7:56 am, May 5, 2009

Tune in tonight at 8:30 PM local Mountain time for the 25th edition of Rocky Mountain Alliance Blog Talk Radio. Our confirmed guest for this week is Ken Marrero, an entrepreneur and one of the leading bloggers on the Right, better known to many as Tennessee’s Blue Collar Muse. A possible guest from the Colorado [...]

RMA Blog Talk Radio at 8:30 Tonight: Blue Collar Muse and More …

by Ben DeGrow | 7:55 am, May 5, 2009

Tune in tonight at 8:30 PM local Mountain time for the 25th edition of Rocky Mountain Alliance Blog Talk Radio. Our confirmed guest for this week is Ken Marrero, an entrepreneur and one of the leading bloggers on the Right, better known to many as Tennessee’s Blue Collar Muse. A possible guest from the Colorado state legislature also may join us, but these being the final hectic hours of the session we’re playing it by ear.

If you miss the live show, you can go back and download the podcast, or just use the handy widget on my sidebar to listen directly from Mount Virtus.

Bob Beauprez Eyeing 2009 Fundraising for Ryan Frazier and Ken Buck?

by Ben DeGrow | 7:49 am, May 5, 2009

The Hill provides a birds-eye Beltway view of the Republican primary challenge shaping up to take out the indecisive and vulnerable Michael Bennet, Colorado’s newly selected junior U.S. Senator.
Writes Aaron Blake:

Republicans lately have been talking a lot about fresh faces, with mixed success in actually obtaining them. While the GOP has lined up current and [...]

More-Equal Pigmanship

by Prospector | 4:13 pm, May 4, 2009

As I listened to Secretary Tim Geithner’s diatribe today on why we should change the tax code, I couldn’t help recall my disgust at he having a leadership role at the IRS. Supposedly these tax code changes are necessary to “eliminate [certain] loopholes for companies and some wealthy individuals” who don’t follow the same rules [...]

Confirmed! Conspiracy And Kool-Aid In McInnis Audio Flap

by elpresidente | 12:17 pm, May 4, 2009

Scott McInnis’ unforced error—reported extensively late last week—prompted a renewed interest in the nature of post-campaign finance reform verbal tap-dancing that candidates (especially potential candidates) must perform in order to skirt possible campaign violations. It has also raised concerns over what exactly being a “friend” or a “fan” or a “follower” of someone on a social networking site—in this case Facebook—really means, and if that “affiliation” constitutes an explicit or even implicit endorsement of the person(s) being followed (the GJ Sentinel alleges that is does).

For Ari Armstrong, the screwy laws that govern campaign language constitutes nothing more than censorship.

For Ben DeGrow, the Facebook evidence is not only weak but entirely meaningless, as quite a few individuals follow various and sundry groups or causes on Facebook merely to keep tabs, not as part of any formal endorsement or show of support.

That CompleteColorado.com’s own follow-up to the McInnis story includes screencaps of other prominent Coloradans, some of whom have been mentioned as part of McInnis’ team, as “followers” of the Draft Sen. Josh Penry page clearly bears this out (Sean Tonner, Monica Owens). This early in a primary session bloggers, like many others, will end up following all potential candidates in a given race simply because of the ability to gain information. This is most likely the reason that the GJ Sentinel itself appears in the list of “Draft Penry” supporters. This is probably also the same reason why Pols creator Jason Bane joined the Ryan Frazier page.

But all of this is just a diversion, according to ColoradoPols. There really is a much simpler solution.

Conspiracy!

According to the koolaid from Pols: Todd Shepherd and Justin Longo own CompleteColorado.com. They also both work for the Independence Institute. Todd refuses to disclose the source of the McInnis voice mail, but it is undoubtedly from a disgruntled Penry supporter, leaked to GOP-friendly media (it might have been faked, but McInnis himself confirmed the message was his). Sen. Penry appeared at the anti-stimulus “pork rally” in February, and aside from the “swastika guy” and Bush-Penry recession smear, is really nothing more than a minion from I.I. due to the fact that the institute’s logo appeared on a podium behind which Penry had given a short speech. Todd and Justin are both supporters of the “Draft Penry” Facebook group, and are therefore—given Penry’s I.I. association—clearly Penry insiders with an axe to grind against Scott McInnis. There is probably also a connection to 9/11 Truth, the Illuminati, Freemasons, the symbols at DIA, and global warming in there as well.

See I told you it was simpler!

Paging Robert Langdon . . .

What is really going on here are a couple things. Pols wishes to stoke a fire of resentment between possible Penry and McInnis camps, especially given the duo’s own personal history (Penry was a staffer for McInnis). CompleteColorado.com has no axe to grind, and given its own investigative reporting accomplishments, would not have been an inappropriate venue to give the audio under any circumstances. Journalistic integrity was at stake. While the GJ Sentinel’s reporter isn’t guilty of any ethics violations, it is clear that his investigative reporting skills are, as well as an understanding of social networking, clearly lacking. Pols is only too willing too play “gotcha!” in an attempt to attack Penry and smear CC as nothing more than partisan and even intrapartisan hacks.

The only hackery here is the weak evidence provided by the GJ Sentinel and the lemming-like effluence emanating from Pols.

Evidence? What evidence? We need only blind accusations and ideologically-soothing conspiracy theories to carry us through the day!

Why We Fight (Blog, Tea Party, etc.) #74

by TJ Wihera | 12:00 pm, May 4, 2009

Sometimes, in all the crippling anger of the times, I begin to despair and forget why fighting the good fight is important. While morality, logic, and pragmatism usually inform my opinion on why we should work to preserve our rights, occasionally it takes something a little more visceral. Like this: Yes, that is an M-80 [...]

Around Colorado: May 4, 2009

by Ari Armstrong | 11:34 am, May 4, 2009

Arvada’s Economic Non-Development

Now this is investigative reporting: Face the State published an article titled, “Arvada Redevelopment Project Sits Mostly Vacant, Costing Taxpayers Nearly $800,000.”

The article begins:

After the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority condemned and forcibly acquired an elderly small business owner’s property in 2004, the land was transferred to a private developer who was given the property free of charge. Now city leaders and other project supporters are lauding the project with awards, despite the fact that the new development sits mostly vacant. The total tab to taxpayers thus far is estimated at nearly $800,000 and counting.

Governments, including city governments, simply should not be in the business of “economic redevelopment.” Such central economic planning invariably employs political force through eminent domain, zoning, or taxation. Politicians can’t ably plan the economy. Leave that to free individuals working together voluntarily with their own resources. What city officials can and should do is get out of the way of economic progress.

Fake Free Speech

In a predictably wishy-washy editorial, the Denver Post worries about the FCC’s ability to fine stations for “fleeting expletives,” but adds, “We believe that protecting children from adult programming and swear words is important…”

Parents who wish to protect their children from naughty words are perfectly free to do so. They can choose whether to purchase a television or radio and whether to leave it turned on to any particular station.

The FCC, properly called the Federal Censorship Commission, should be completely disbanded.

‘Job Creation Bills’

The Associated Press claims that Governor “Bill Ritter is preparing to sign two of the top job-creation and business-development bills this session.” A centerpiece of the legislation is granting “businesses that create at least 20 jobs” tax breaks.

But if giving businesses tax breaks creates jobs, then doesn’t taxing all other businesses destroy jobs, damage the economy, lower wages, and increases prices on consumer goods? Of course it does. But, somehow, when Ritter signs a $17.9 billion state budget, he doesn’t describe that as the “economy-crushing bill.”

Also, why is it great to generate twenty jobs but not, say, nineteen? Isn’t it better if two companies each create fifteen jobs than if one company creates twenty? Yet the discriminatory taxes will punish the two smaller businesses and give the larger business a break. Because, under Colorado tax law, some tax payers are more equal than others.

Clear the Bench

Matt Arnold has set up a new organization called Clear the Bench Colorado, an effort to urge voters to decline to retain the four State Supreme Court justices up for vote next year.

In an April 29 speech, Arnold explained why this is an important opportunity to vote against the taxpayer-hating Supreme Court.

Senate Bill 180: Another Big Labor Veto Dilemma for Vulnerable Bill Ritter

by Ben DeGrow | 11:21 am, May 4, 2009

Two years ago Governor Bill Ritter came right out of the gate and ran smack into a tough veto choice that caused friction with his Big Labor supporters. Ritter made up for the nixing of House Bill 1072 later in 2007 with an executive order giving union organizers a gold-plated invitation into Colorado state government.
Now, [...]

Obama’s empathetic judicial poison

by Rossputin | 1:20 am, May 4, 2009

Barack Obama’s statement that “empathy” would be a key qualification he’d look for in a nominee to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court is not simply soft liberal thinking, it’s a direct attack on the rule of law, an abrogation of Obama’s oath of office – and entirely consistent with Obama’s prior statements.

Obama’s statement about the process of selecting his nominee included this:

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

What Obama is saying here is that the rule of law should be secondary in judicial reasoning to a judge’s own personal feelings. It is nothing short of a recipe for a breakdown of our legal system, and the death of an expectation by participants in court proceedings that they will be treated fairly, particularly if they are not highly sympathetic. For example, a case where someone files a case against an insurance company, where the plaintiff is very sympathetic but the insurance company is in the right. It’s easy to imagine a judge who fits Obama’s description ruling against the insurance company because the plaintiff’s “hopes and struggles” are helped by giving him the insurance company’s money. It’s also easy to imagine everybody’s insurance rates going up the very first time the Supreme Court rules in such a way.

Indeed, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ use of the Lilly Ledbetter Supreme Court decision as rationale for requiring “empathy” as a qualification makes my case. Ledbetter’s original claim was thrown out by an appeals court and then again by the Supreme Court because she filed her claim after the deadline for such claims. While people might have legitimate disagreement with where the deadline was set in law, any remedy should be done through legislation. Arguing that the courts should have allowed her claim because “the ramifications are important” despite the clear letter of the law is tantamount to saying there is no law.

Obama’s erroneous thinking about the rule of law has been consistently represented through his own words. Going back to his 2001 Chicago radio interviews in which he implied that the Supreme Court should be more active in redistributing wealth to his campaign statement that “I want my justice to understand that part of the role of the court is to look out for the people who don’t have political power.”

Obama is wrong. The courts should be blind to the political power of the plaintiffs and should rule based on the law. “Judicial activism”, a popular phrase of derision by the right about courts doing things like overturning multiple voter-passed referenda banning gay marriage, can also happen by conservative judges. However, while it’s less frequent, conservative judicial activism is also possible, such as regarding social issues. If I support judicial activism that reaches a result I like, I lose any moral standing to challenge future court over-reaching that comes to a decision I don’t like. That’s why I oppose Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court tortured the Constitution to get to an outcome they wanted to reach. While I like that outcome, since I’m pro-choice, I can’t support the decision because the next time the Court could just as arbitrarily reach the opposite decision, or some other decision which I oppose by finding a non-existing “right”.

The sort of activism which is a direct product of ruling based on “empathy” rather than the rule of law is an unvarnished long-term negative for the nation. The proper functioning of a society and an economy absolutely requires a government which can be relied on to the greatest extent possible not to change the rules of the game simply depending on how much a bureaucrat or judge likes or dislikes a person, organization, or company. Decisions are made, money spent, and people are hired, based on understanding the law. If a judge’s “empathy” leads him to say that the law shouldn’t apply in this case it is an arrow aimed at the heart of our nation’s legal system and its economy.

Again, the word “law” implies something solid and essentially not subject to opinion. The idea that “empathy” is an important part of a jurist’s approach, particularly someone who would serve on the nation’s highest court, is, despite its pretty sound, repugnant. It is poison to our nation, but we can’t say we weren’t warned by Obama himself that it’s the poison he intended to inject into us if he got the chance.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Colorado Supreme Court Double-Crosses Colorado Voters

by CTBC Director | 11:30 pm, May 3, 2009

Our lawmakers are poised to make liars and knaves out of former school board members all over the state. They’re about to make fools out of state education officials of the past two decades. They’re about to make chumps out of local voters from one corner of Colorado to another.
And Gov. Bill Ritter is likely [...]

Lincoln Club Luncheon – CTBC Director Speech, 29 April 2009

by admin | 10:00 pm, May 3, 2009

For those unable to attend – a recap of Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold’s speech at the Lincoln Club luncheon, 29 April 2009.
[Note that this is not a transcript - some differences in text vs. speech may have occurred]
Typically, when people discuss politics, they think of legislators – Federal and State, House and Senate – [...]

Marx makes front page of Foreign Policy Magazine

by The Constitutional Reporter | 10:00 pm, May 3, 2009

One of my favorite magazines, Foreign Policy, has me agitated over their recent cover story- “Marx Really? Why he matters now.” I read through, with much consternation, the articles “Thoroughly Modern Marx” by Leo Panitch and “Confessions of …

KRCX Seng Center Final Show 4/30 – Part I

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 6:50 pm, May 3, 2009

The following is Part One of Seng Center’s final
Regis
University radio show on 4/30, in which we break down President Obama’s performance during his first 100 days in office with liberal Kaleb Brooks.

25.86 MB Download

KRCX Seng Center Final Show 4/30 – Part II

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 6:48 pm, May 3, 2009

The following is Part Two of Seng Center’s final Regis University radio show on 4/30, featuring our exclusive interview
with former Colorado Senate President John Andrews, currently host of Backbone Radio every Sunday night from 5 to 8 on Denver’s AM 710 KNUS. Senator Andrews talks with Jimmy about the new opportunities for young Republicans on college campuses, the state government’s unconstitutional property tax heist, the effort to remove four Colorado Supreme Court justices up for retention next year, and much more.

For more information about the “Clear the Bench Colorado” effort to mobilize Coloradans to vote “No on retaining Supreme Court Justices Mary Mullarkey, Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice in 2010, visit them online at www.ClearTheBenchColorado.org.

34.4 MB Download

KRCX Seng Center Final Show 4/30 – Part III

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 6:46 pm, May 3, 2009

The following is Part Three of Seng Center’s final Regis University radio show on 4/30, featuring our last “Pink Panther Moment” of the school year, highlighting Joe Biden, as well as our civil debate with Braden Smith on the Bush legacy, the Afghanistan war, and whether or not marriage should be opened up to include gay marriage.

56.8 MB Download

A Column, Written on a Sunday, Whilst Barefoot.

by Eileen McGuire-Mahony | 11:35 am, May 3, 2009

One of the perks of being the Washington Bureau Chief is that I have an army of research minions who send me carefully selected links. It’s like they do all they work while I wear outrageous hats and drink with random Beltway dwellers and then I just add commentary. Actually, it’s exactly like that. And [...]

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

Follow PPC

Search

WayIn

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Advertise Here!

Categories

Archives

Meta

Blogroll

Contributors